[Nextgrid]

> everyone else is trying but haven't really shown much promise

What was the incentive/funding for their attempts? In a non-national-security scenario it makes sense not to try too hard because you can just buy ASML's solution.

With China it's a bit different, if they decide it's a matter of national security and pour Manhattan-project-levels of money/resources into it, they could make faster progress.

[dragontamer]

Well yeah. No one is saying that China cannot do that. Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships.

Force Chinas growth to be more expensive. It has nothing to do with not believing China can do it, it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.

[SiempreViernes]

> Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships.

Note that this calculus only makes sense if you invade China while they are busy with the EUV machines, otherwise they catch up technologically and then build all the scary military.

Of course, the the calculus doesn't make sense at all, because the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race.

[dragontamer]

Their plan was to buy those chips and equipment and have the troops/ships/weapons sooner.

Now China has to build EUV themselves, then mass produce chips. It slows them down regardless and costs them resources.

Cut off the market before it becomes a problem.

---------

Militarily, delaying China into 2040s after the USA has stealth destroyers of our own (beginning production in late 2020s, mass production in the 2030s) means China has to fight vs 2030s era tech instead of our 1980s era Arleigh Burke DDGs.

What, do you want to have the fight in late 2020s or would you rather have the war in late 2030s? There is a huge difference and USAs production schedule cannot change. But we can change Chinas production schedule.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race

Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)

[mk89]

That's not true. Mass/quantity can still resist/delay/push back until you're exhausted and done.

We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles. Still, all it takes is 1 dumb missile to pass through the defenses and an entire city can be wiped off. At the end of the day, they don't care if a missiles didn't reach the precise target. As you can see in Ukraine, Russia is bombing all types of buildings, they don't give a damn about schools, kindergarten or so.

The tech component is not everything.

[JumpCrisscross]

> We're not anymore in the swords vs guns era. We're talking about hypersonic missiles vs super intelligent hypersonic missiles

These are still hypotheticals. Every war since the Civil War has had a decisive technological component. If the model doesn't apply there, this time probably ain't different.

[mk89]

Like the Vietnam War? Or the wars in Afghanistan...?

[hearsathought]

> it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.

But it's not slowing them down. It's forcing them to accelerate development ( aka investing more into the sector ). Has china invested more or less? It's amazing how blind people are to this counterintuitive fact.

[dragontamer]

Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly?

Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down. Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips.

[hearsathought]

> Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly?

"Give them"? I love sneaky propagandists. No, make them pay for it. It's what we do to our "allies" so that they are dependent on american tech.

> Of course investing into chip development is slowing China down.

From a myopic narrow point of view. But viewed more broadly, it has accelerated china's tech development.

> Its slower to build their own than for us to give them those chips.

In the short term, but not the long term. Just like banning china from participating in the international space station forced china to accelerate their development of their space program.

[dragontamer]

> From a myopic narrow point of view. But viewed more broadly, it has accelerated china's tech development.

Yes. I'm fine with this.

Weakening China in the short term means pushing the Taiwan war timeline by years. Years that we will spend building up the DDG(X).

As I said before and I'll say again: USA is weak in 2020s but strong in the 2030s. We only need to delay China by a few years and the DDG(X) changes everything.

----------

You need to understand that I make my view based on the perceived strength of the US Navy. The US Navy is getting huge upgrades and a few years of delay makes an incredible difference.

[hearsathought]

"We"? Okay buddy.

> USA is weak in 2020s but strong in the 2030s.

The US is the largest economy with an unparalleled military at the moment. What are you talking about?

> The US Navy is getting huge upgrades and a few years of delay makes an incredible difference.

For what? The US Navy will play no role in a war between china and taiwan.

No offense, but who gives a shit about taiwan? Not americans. Only chinese people care about taiwan.

[beej71]

> Oh, and your plan is to just give them the chips they want directly?

Yes! Remove the impetus for them to innovate and make them reliant on our exports.

[mtrovo]

Agree, especially given the track record of China outcompeting in other markets where they got blocked.